We have our referendum, it will be the 5th May next year. I have made my position on this issue clear here on a number of occassions, so I won’t give all the details again. I will be voting “yes, with bells on” on May 5th and my reasons can be found at takebackparliament.com, the electoral reform society and voteforachange.com. I don’t consider the alternative vote system to be the best option, but it is a big step in the right direction and will make the next step (to single transferable vote) much easier.
And yet…
Amid the relief at having won this small battle, and in between gearing up for ten months of campaigning, it has become apparent that those in the “no” camp are already doing their best to steal this referendum by using dirty tricks. Those fighting for electoral reform are doing it by the book, openly and fairly; if we loose, it will be because the public voted against the idea and do not want reform. However, those in opposition are obviously already afraid that they cannot win this vote using discussion and a fair vote, so they are moving the goal posts. I suppose it should come as no surprise that those for improved democracy wish to win their argument fairly, while those that are against it prefer to cheat.
A group of backbench MPs, led by Bernard Jenkin, are campaigning for a threshold to be reached in order for a yes vote to stand. The threshold they have set is 40% of all voters, including those who abstain. With no threshold, not voting was not voting but, with this rule in place, not voting automatically counts as a vote for the status quo and against electoral reform. Obviously, that gives those in the “no” camp a huge advantage. It also, perversely, gives their campaigners an incentive to depress voter turnout as, if you don’t show up, you are a certain vote against where as, if you do, you might change your mind in the booth. No rule that gives campaigners an incentive to stop people having their voices heard can be good for democracy.
It would seem to be a signal that those against reform are already worried this is a vote they cannot win and so they have resorted to dirty tricks to get their way. It hardly need be said that those ivolved are those with the most to lose, that is, those who currently enjoy a level of power far in excess of that deserved by the level of support for them.
My MP is Bernard Jenkin. He is a Conservative, but I wasn’t holding that against him. He ran up a rather large expenses bill but then was let off paying most of it back on appeal; I follow his speeches on Hansard and, for the most part, he seems to be doing his job pretty well. Until, that is, he set up this odious campaign. Now my regard for him has fallen through the floor. Shame on you Bernard Jenkin, shame.
Please write to you MP and show them that there is no support for this sort of unfair, undemocratic, selfish and immoral twisting of the rules for personal and party gain.
http://www.takebackparliament.com/page/speakout/stitchup
Here is my missive. I doubt it will have much of an effect, but writing it made me feel better.
Dear Mr Jenkin,
I have just received the exceedingly disappointing news that you are leading a campaign by backbench MPs to insist on a threshold level of “yes” votes to be reached in order for the results of the recently announced referendum on voting reform to stand.
I am sure you already know that the level of 40% of all registered voters, including those that do not vote, effectively counts everyone who abstains as a “no” voter. This is an exceedingly high threshold and one that, had it been in place for our most recent general election, only 1 in 20 of our elected MPs would have passed. I am sure I do not need to remind you, although I shall anyway, that you yourself were far from passing this test as only 1 in 3 of your constituents voted for you.
This is quite clearly a cynical and desperate ploy to raise the bar too high to be reached by those afraid that the new system will hurt them personally.
Your party accepted a referendum on the AV system as the price for Lib Dem support in this coalition. You are not required to agree with the Lib Dem position, but what you are engaged in now is an unfair attempt to torpedo this referendum against the spirit of the agreement.
You are a public servant required to serve your constituents. No-one is asking you to vote against your wishes for a voting system you do not personally support, but you are being asked to give your constituents a fair and free opportunity to make their wishes known. What you are engaged in now is an undemocratic attempt to rig the referendum in favour of those voting for the status quo and I am appalled to hear you are so willing to put your morals and your responsibility to those in your constituency on hold so easily for personal and party gain. This rule would give a perverse incentive to those campaigning for a “no” vote to depress turnout. No rule that leads to voters being actively discouraged from participating can ever be considered beneficial to the democratic process.
There are aspects of Conservative party policy that I can never be reconciled with, however, as I learned more about my own MP I was coming to the opinion that, party affiliation and a rather large expenses bill aside, you were, on the whole, doing your job fairly well. Consequently, I am very disappointed to hear you are the ringleader in this ploy. In one stroke, it has shaken my faith in you as an MP, and as a moral person, to the core. I find it impossible to believe someone so willing to damage the democratic process and limit the ability of regular people to make their voices heard can ever have the needs of their constituency truly at heart.
I shouldn’t need to set out my own position as the rest of this letter should make it clear enough but, for the record, I strongly oppose the tabling of this amendment and request that you consider dropping this horrible idea.
Yours,
Dr Ellie Banwell
